Symmetry wrote:As Saxi pointed out earlier, the folks asked were only people who were editors under the regime, or people who the magazine considered to be solidly libertarian by the editors of the magazine.

Is it really that shocking to you that all of the people employed by the solidly Libertarian Party chief editor and all of the staff went for Johnson or said that they weren't going to vote?

Your poll indicates that my suspicions were correct.

saxitoxin wrote:To Recap -

Sym: Reason is a crazy libertarian website! Correction: Reason is a 50 year-old print magazine named the 21st best magazine in America by the Chicago Tribune

Sym: Reason would naturally only endorse the Libertarian candidate! Correction: In 2008 the plurality of their staff endorsed Barack Obama, the Democrat candidate.

Sym: Well, well ... any difference in 2008 was because of a change in editors. Their 2012 editor wrote a pro-Libertarian book - there was a radical editorial shift! Correction: Their 2008 editor wrote the same book (they were co-authors).

Sym: I DON'T CARE. Reason is the mouthpiece of the Libertarian Party!Correction:Reason pushes an overtly libertarian viewpoint like New Republic pushes an overtly center-left viewpoint. New Republic is not owned by the Democrat Party, Reason is not owned by the Libertarian Party.

If you want to join in discussions about USA politics, I think you need to spend some time educating yourself about the major players in the principal commentary journals, don't you agree? I'm sure you do. You've made yourself look a little silly in this thread by very basic factual errors and wild attempts to cover them up by making even bigger factual errors.

I'm glad you've come around now. Hopefully you will educate yourself a little more before spouting off nonsense.

Symmetry wrote:So you were baiting me to tell me that although your info (well researched by the way) was largely supportive of my point, you wanted to tell me that I was spouting nonsense?

I guess it's a step up from you calling me a troll and/or a moron.

Maybe you are becoming a bit more civil.

I think you probably should spend a bit less time hanging out with Saxitoxin though.

I wasn't baiting you at all. I don't play those kinds of games. Perhaps you should go back to the beginning of this discussion, way back like 5 pages ago. Saxi's summary is good if you don't want to read every post.

In any event, my post wasn't supportive of your point. Your point was that the editorial staff of Reason pressured people to vote for the Libertarian Party. Check page 12 or 13.

After 4 or 5 more pages of posts, it appears you've since changed your point to "they answered in a way someone who writes for Reason would answer," which I still don't agree with (I'll get to that later), but makes a whole lot more sense.

I love Saxi, but have not had the opportunity to hang out with him. I tend to post here because I like to have discussions with other people. I think Saxi likes to be funny (although funny with intelligence is probably more accurate). Your degeneration into whatever it is you're doing these days bothers me only because you used to be a good poster. Given today's posts, with the exception of the above, I think you're getting back to that, which is good.

So let's talk about your new point: People in this link voted (or not voted) were who the magazine deemed to be solidly libertarian. While your point appears well-reasoned and makes sense logically, it's also not accurate. Some of these people said they would vote for Gary Johnson. Some of them said they would not vote. Some of the people who selected Gary Johnson voted for Libertarians in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but not all of them; some of them voted for Democrats or Republicans. And, as I indicated in my initial response to Saxi, I find it fascinating when people change their views on political parties, which is why I recommended that others read it.

Symmetry wrote:So you were baiting me to tell me that although your info (well researched by the way) was largely supportive of my point, you wanted to tell me that I was spouting nonsense?

I guess it's a step up from you calling me a troll and/or a moron.

Maybe you are becoming a bit more civil.

I think you probably should spend a bit less time hanging out with Saxitoxin though.

I wasn't baiting you at all. I don't play those kinds of games. Perhaps you should go back to the beginning of this discussion, way back like 5 pages ago. Saxi's summary is good if you don't want to read every post.

In any event, my post wasn't supportive of your point. Your point was that the editorial staff of Reason pressured people to vote for the Libertarian Party. Check page 12 or 13.

After 4 or 5 more pages of posts, it appears you've since changed your point to "they answered in a way someone who writes for Reason would answer," which I still don't agree with (I'll get to that later), but makes a whole lot more sense.

I love Saxi, but have not had the opportunity to hang out with him. I tend to post here because I like to have discussions with other people. I think Saxi likes to be funny (although funny with intelligence is probably more accurate). Your degeneration into whatever it is you're doing these days bothers me only because you used to be a good poster. Given today's posts, with the exception of the above, I think you're getting back to that, which is good.

So let's talk about your new point: People in this link voted (or not voted) were who the magazine deemed to be solidly libertarian. While your point appears well-reasoned and makes sense logically, it's also not accurate. Some of these people said they would vote for Gary Johnson. Some of them said they would not vote. Some of the people who selected Gary Johnson voted for Libertarians in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but not all of them; some of them voted for Democrats or Republicans. And, as I indicated in my initial response to Saxi, I find it fascinating when people change their views on political parties, which is why I recommended that others read it.

Of course you were baiting, you literally told me that I should stop posting in one of my threads before responding to you in this one, Which has been mostly flaming by you and Saxi of late.

Now you're offering a lot of new data, so my position might change again. I'm generally of the opinion that you're baiting me with the intention of calling me a moron, a troll, or that I'm "spouting nonsense", although you have also changed position during the course of the discussion.

Symmetry wrote:So you were baiting me to tell me that although your info (well researched by the way) was largely supportive of my point, you wanted to tell me that I was spouting nonsense?

I guess it's a step up from you calling me a troll and/or a moron.

Maybe you are becoming a bit more civil.

I think you probably should spend a bit less time hanging out with Saxitoxin though.

I wasn't baiting you at all. I don't play those kinds of games. Perhaps you should go back to the beginning of this discussion, way back like 5 pages ago. Saxi's summary is good if you don't want to read every post.

In any event, my post wasn't supportive of your point. Your point was that the editorial staff of Reason pressured people to vote for the Libertarian Party. Check page 12 or 13.

After 4 or 5 more pages of posts, it appears you've since changed your point to "they answered in a way someone who writes for Reason would answer," which I still don't agree with (I'll get to that later), but makes a whole lot more sense.

I love Saxi, but have not had the opportunity to hang out with him. I tend to post here because I like to have discussions with other people. I think Saxi likes to be funny (although funny with intelligence is probably more accurate). Your degeneration into whatever it is you're doing these days bothers me only because you used to be a good poster. Given today's posts, with the exception of the above, I think you're getting back to that, which is good.

So let's talk about your new point: People in this link voted (or not voted) were who the magazine deemed to be solidly libertarian. While your point appears well-reasoned and makes sense logically, it's also not accurate. Some of these people said they would vote for Gary Johnson. Some of them said they would not vote. Some of the people who selected Gary Johnson voted for Libertarians in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but not all of them; some of them voted for Democrats or Republicans. And, as I indicated in my initial response to Saxi, I find it fascinating when people change their views on political parties, which is why I recommended that others read it.

Of course you were baiting, you literally told me that I should stop posting in one of my threads before responding to you in this one, Which has been mostly flaming by you and Saxi of late.

Now you're offering a lot of new data, so my position might change again. I'm generally of the opinion that you're baiting me with the intention of calling me a moron, a troll, or that I'm "spouting nonsense", although you have also changed position during the course of the discussion.

Can you agree to be civil?

How am I offering new data? The link was posted like five or six pages ago. I asked you for your analysis and you did not provide anything except some "Reason editors pressured them" or "Obviously Reason wanted Libertarians to put their two cents in." I typed a whole ton of shit here. Why? Not because I'm baiting you or flaming you. I basically retyped the article. I did it because I want to inform you. You are clearly uninformed on libertarianism.

When you come out with a conspiracy theory and then don't admit that you're wrong, I believe you're trolling. Did you read the content of the link? Are you going to read the content of the link? If you didn't read the content and made that statement, and continue to make these statements after counterpoints are provided, what else am I supposed to think?

My rant is done. You successfully and officially got me angry. You win. I'll stay away from you on things like this from now on, if only to spare others this stupidity.

Phatscotty wrote:bout time you realize that GD. Symmetry would be okay, there are just so many little things he misses. But it's not his fault.

That's why I will never understand non-Americans who obsess over America. They usually don't know enough to justify their obsession, rather they just hate and then fill in the blanks.

No offense, but you're not much better. You identify yourself as a small government constitutionalist type but make comments like a big government, social conservative. It's fine if you're the latter... just admit it once in a while. I mean c'mon. You voted for Romney.

Symmetry wrote:So you were baiting me to tell me that although your info (well researched by the way) was largely supportive of my point, you wanted to tell me that I was spouting nonsense?

I guess it's a step up from you calling me a troll and/or a moron.

Maybe you are becoming a bit more civil.

I think you probably should spend a bit less time hanging out with Saxitoxin though.

I wasn't baiting you at all. I don't play those kinds of games. Perhaps you should go back to the beginning of this discussion, way back like 5 pages ago. Saxi's summary is good if you don't want to read every post.

In any event, my post wasn't supportive of your point. Your point was that the editorial staff of Reason pressured people to vote for the Libertarian Party. Check page 12 or 13.

After 4 or 5 more pages of posts, it appears you've since changed your point to "they answered in a way someone who writes for Reason would answer," which I still don't agree with (I'll get to that later), but makes a whole lot more sense.

I love Saxi, but have not had the opportunity to hang out with him. I tend to post here because I like to have discussions with other people. I think Saxi likes to be funny (although funny with intelligence is probably more accurate). Your degeneration into whatever it is you're doing these days bothers me only because you used to be a good poster. Given today's posts, with the exception of the above, I think you're getting back to that, which is good.

So let's talk about your new point: People in this link voted (or not voted) were who the magazine deemed to be solidly libertarian. While your point appears well-reasoned and makes sense logically, it's also not accurate. Some of these people said they would vote for Gary Johnson. Some of them said they would not vote. Some of the people who selected Gary Johnson voted for Libertarians in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but not all of them; some of them voted for Democrats or Republicans. And, as I indicated in my initial response to Saxi, I find it fascinating when people change their views on political parties, which is why I recommended that others read it.

Of course you were baiting, you literally told me that I should stop posting in one of my threads before responding to you in this one, Which has been mostly flaming by you and Saxi of late.

Now you're offering a lot of new data, so my position might change again. I'm generally of the opinion that you're baiting me with the intention of calling me a moron, a troll, or that I'm "spouting nonsense", although you have also changed position during the course of the discussion.

Can you agree to be civil?

How am I offering new data? The link was posted like five or six pages ago. I asked you for your analysis and you did not provide anything except some "Reason editors pressured them" or "Obviously Reason wanted Libertarians to put their two cents in." I typed a whole ton of shit here. Why? Not because I'm baiting you or flaming you. I basically retyped the article. I did it because I want to inform you. You are clearly uninformed on libertarianism.

When you come out with a conspiracy theory and then don't admit that you're wrong, I believe you're trolling. Did you read the content of the link? Are you going to read the content of the link? If you didn't read the content and made that statement, and continue to make these statements after counterpoints are provided, what else am I supposed to think?

My rant is done. You successfully and officially got me angry. You win. I'll stay away from you on things like this from now on, if only to spare others this stupidity.

You provided that post as the link you wanted me to reply to. Not anything 5 or 6 pages ago. You asked me to reply to that post. Now you're angry that I didn't reply properly to a different post.

What the hell are you doing dude? You're just baiting and then posting flames.

While I'd like to believe that abortion and gay marriage are important issues, I also know that economic issues trump them in most respects. So, which economic issues are the Republicans not on board wiht?

oVo wrote:Admitting that Wall Street can't monitor itself, the trickle down doesn't work and squeezing extra tax dollars from the wealthy in America is necessary...

of course gay rights, immigration and women's issues too.

Rhetoric aside, what monitoring systems did the Democrats put in or want to put in? I mean, taxes fine... the people that voted for Barack Obama want to raise taxes on the rich, which is debatable as sound economic policy. But how are the Democrats monitoring Wall Street?

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.

I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.

Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.

So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

stoicbird wrote:Obama got 93% of the black vote. 74% of the hispanic vote and still only got 1% more than Romney.

Did he get these votes solely on his issues or just because he's not white? I hope its down to his issues and I hope he can deliver his promises. I wish him well.

Well, I wonder if hispanics were slightly concerned that some of their relatives would be deported by the far more conservative approach to immigration that Romney was likely to implement.

As far as the black vote, I suspect some absolutely related to him as a black, just as many cant relate to him because they are white, but what has been the historical ratio of black voting republican vs democrat in the past? One must see the actual change to discuss it really.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.

I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.

Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.

So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.

Like I've said in another thread, I don't think people didn't vote for Romney because he moved to the conservative side of the social spectrum. I think people had a bad opinion of Romney as a rich, fatcat, white guy who was going to benefit the rich (we have been a true charaterization). If the Republicans had put Rubio or Christie up instead of Romney with the same message, I believe the Republicans would hold the White House.

In other words, I don't think it was social conservatism that lost the presidential election (unfortunately). I think it was a poor candidate. I compare it to the 2004 election. The Democrats should have won, but they didn't because John Kerry was not a good candidate. Romney was not a good candidate.

And I do wish it was social conservatism that lost the election, because then I think it would change the Republican Party.

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.

I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.

Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.

So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.

Like I've said in another thread, I don't think people didn't vote for Romney because he moved to the conservative side of the social spectrum. I think people had a bad opinion of Romney as a rich, fatcat, white guy who was going to benefit the rich (we have been a true charaterization). If the Republicans had put Rubio or Christie up instead of Romney with the same message, I believe the Republicans would hold the White House.

In other words, I don't think it was social conservatism that lost the presidential election (unfortunately). I think it was a poor candidate. I compare it to the 2004 election. The Democrats should have won, but they didn't because John Kerry was not a good candidate. Romney was not a good candidate.

And I do wish it was social conservatism that lost the election, because then I think it would change the Republican Party.

Well, no doubt you are partially right and obviously there are many underlying reasons why individuals didn't vote for him, and a rich Gordon Gecko was definitely among them., but to discount that many disliked the conservatism, which certainly influenced the vote is far too speculative. In any case, I know that was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for him, and while, suggesting that others think like I do, would be even more speculative, its at least possible.

In any case, its fairly presumptive, to say he couldn't have swung it the other way, with a few changes along the way, or mores specifically, not making so many damn changes, and just sticking with his past moderate policies, that clearly are a large part of his success in life to this point.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

It is all speculation, agreed. And the Republicans could fix the two items, the candidate and the social conservatism, in the next election. And I think they should fix both of those items. But if they fix the one (candidate) and not the other (social conservatism), I think they can still win.

I'm still going to go with the main reason he didn't win was the charisma factor. He was pounded by everyone for his wealth and keeping tax cuts for the wealthy (ironically, I read on WSJ today that it is likely that the president will not get or push for tax increases on the wealthy in the next four years). He was not pounded so much on abortion or gay marriage (although I did see abortion-type ads at the end). The election and reelection of Bush showed that Americans will vote for a socially conservative president. I don't think that much has changed in eight years, although perhaps the views on gay marriage have. But again, gay marriage was not discussed at all (among other things; no one talked about the Patriot Act and no one talked about global warming). I think for most, if not all, people, it was an election based on economics and money, not on social issues. And when your candidate is a rich guy who is seen as taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to Chinese, buying up and destroying US companies, commenting on the 47%, etc., you're not going to win.

thegreekdog wrote:It is all speculation, agreed. And the Republicans could fix the two items, the candidate and the social conservatism, in the next election. And I think they should fix both of those items. But if they fix the one (candidate) and not the other (social conservatism), I think they can still win.

I'm still going to go with the main reason he didn't win was the charisma factor. He was pounded by everyone for his wealth and keeping tax cuts for the wealthy (ironically, I read on WSJ today that it is likely that the president will not get or push for tax increases on the wealthy in the next four years). He was not pounded so much on abortion or gay marriage (although I did see abortion-type ads at the end). The election and reelection of Bush showed that Americans will vote for a socially conservative president. I don't think that much has changed in eight years, although perhaps the views on gay marriage have. But again, gay marriage was not discussed at all (among other things; no one talked about the Patriot Act and no one talked about global warming). I think for most, if not all, people, it was an election based on economics and money, not on social issues. And when your candidate is a rich guy who is seen as taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to Chinese, buying up and destroying US companies, commenting on the 47%, etc., you're not going to win.

He definitely made some mistakes. In that context, its actually scary he got so many votes.

I really do hope this is a wake-up call for any republicans that haven't gone off the deep end forever though.

The extremism was kind of fun while it lasted, but it really seems to be a good time to sit down and actually get something done now. People are clearly just going to keep voting in new people until that happens.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

thegreekdog wrote:It is all speculation, agreed. And the Republicans could fix the two items, the candidate and the social conservatism, in the next election. And I think they should fix both of those items. But if they fix the one (candidate) and not the other (social conservatism), I think they can still win.

I'm still going to go with the main reason he didn't win was the charisma factor. He was pounded by everyone for his wealth and keeping tax cuts for the wealthy (ironically, I read on WSJ today that it is likely that the president will not get or push for tax increases on the wealthy in the next four years). He was not pounded so much on abortion or gay marriage (although I did see abortion-type ads at the end). The election and reelection of Bush showed that Americans will vote for a socially conservative president. I don't think that much has changed in eight years, although perhaps the views on gay marriage have. But again, gay marriage was not discussed at all (among other things; no one talked about the Patriot Act and no one talked about global warming). I think for most, if not all, people, it was an election based on economics and money, not on social issues. And when your candidate is a rich guy who is seen as taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to Chinese, buying up and destroying US companies, commenting on the 47%, etc., you're not going to win.

He definitely made some mistakes. In that context, its actually scary he got so many votes.

I really do hope this is a wake-up call for any republicans that haven't gone off the deep end forever though.

The extremism was kind of fun while it lasted, but it really seems to be a good time to sit down and actually get something done now. People are clearly just going to keep voting in new people until that happens.

I've been banging that drum for going on six years. I am not hopeful.

I'm telling you - they're going to put Marco Rubio up in 2016, who is actually really more conservative than Romney and he's going to win big.

AAFitz wrote:Well, no doubt you are partially right and obviously there are many underlying reasons why individuals didn't vote for him, and a rich Gordon Gecko was definitely among them., but to discount that many disliked the conservatism, which certainly influenced the vote is far too speculative. In any case, I know that was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for him, and while, suggesting that others think like I do, would be even more speculative, its at least possible.

In any case, its fairly presumptive, to say he couldn't have swung it the other way, with a few changes along the way, or mores specifically, not making so many damn changes, and just sticking with his past moderate policies, that clearly are a large part of his success in life to this point.

This Republican will tell you why she didn't vote for Romney.

1) His views on many things swung North, South, East, West, depending on who was asking.2) His claim of balancing the Olympics budget, while true, was only true because he was able to borrow from the Federal government, which meant that if he'd been president when he had to balance the Olympics budget, he would not have been able to borrow from the Federal government to do so, so would have failed to balance that budget - because the Fed had to borrow the money, increasing the deficit, in order to loan him the money he needed to succeed. And he wants to deny that type of thing to anyone else.3) He picked an anti-choice running mate.4) His numbers for his "cap the deductions" plan did not add up. He knew they didn't add up, because if they had, he wouldn't have kept telling folks to pick a number to set as the cap, he would himself have known what that number needed to be.5) He refused to reveal his taxes; no other candidate for any office has ever been so secretive about whether he did or did not pay appropriate US taxes.6) While he made a lot of money in his ventures, his ventures lost over 20,000 American jobs, so his claim to know how to create jobs was bogus.7) His "fix" to Medicare wouldn't fix the part that was broken. Today's retirees, part of the baby boomers, are what's busted that bank, but his (Ryan's) "fix" would not reduce any benefits to any baby boomer. Instead, it would kill medicare for everyone after the baby boomers.In all, these things added up to He was the type who would say anything, ANYTHING, to get elected, even if it was not true.Which leads to 9) and then he'd deny saying what he had said.10) He and most (other) Republicans refuse to acknowledge that what worked for Reagan when Reagan lowered "wealthy tax" rates from 70% to a lower number; then realized he'd gone too far and had to raise them up a little - wouldn't work now that "wealthy tax" rates are already lower than the number Reagan had realized was "too low" for the United States' economic health.

So, the only "social issue" part of this was the anti-choice Ryan. It's important to me, as a pro-choice Republican, but it's not "the" most important thing to me. Five through Nine of my list were the main reasons I chose not to vote for him. If he'd said, "Would I lie to you?" I'd have to say, "Yes you did!"